Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 19 Apr 2018 03:58:56 -0700 | From | tip-bot for Laura Abbott <> | Subject | [tip:timers/urgent] posix-cpu-timers: Ensure set_process_cpu_timer is always evaluated |
| |
Commit-ID: c3bca5d450b620dd3d36e14b5e1f43639fd47d6b Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/c3bca5d450b620dd3d36e14b5e1f43639fd47d6b Author: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> AuthorDate: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:57:42 -0700 Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> CommitDate: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:54:57 +0200
posix-cpu-timers: Ensure set_process_cpu_timer is always evaluated
Commit a9445e47d897 ("posix-cpu-timers: Make set_process_cpu_timer() more robust") moved the check into the 'if' statement. Unfortunately, it did so on the right side of an && which means that it may get short circuited and never evaluated. This is easily reproduced with:
$ cat loop.c void main() { struct rlimit res; /* set the CPU time limit */ getrlimit(RLIMIT_CPU,&res); res.rlim_cur = 2; res.rlim_max = 2; setrlimit(RLIMIT_CPU,&res);
while (1); }
Which will hang forever instead of being killed. Fix this by pulling the evaluation out of the if statement but checking the return value instead.
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1568337 Fixes: a9445e47d897 ("posix-cpu-timers: Make set_process_cpu_timer() more robust") Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: "Max R . P . Grossmann" <m@max.pm> Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180417215742.2521-1-labbott@redhat.com
--- kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c index 2541bd89f20e..5a6251ac6f7a 100644 --- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c +++ b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c @@ -1205,10 +1205,12 @@ void set_process_cpu_timer(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int clock_idx, u64 *newval, u64 *oldval) { u64 now; + int ret; WARN_ON_ONCE(clock_idx == CPUCLOCK_SCHED); + ret = cpu_timer_sample_group(clock_idx, tsk, &now); - if (oldval && cpu_timer_sample_group(clock_idx, tsk, &now) != -EINVAL) { + if (oldval && ret != -EINVAL) { /* * We are setting itimer. The *oldval is absolute and we update * it to be relative, *newval argument is relative and we update
| |